A quick note on the Alito hearings
The hearings for Judge Alito begin later today. Given Alito's views on Presidential "signing statements" discussed in Part 6 of the series on the McCain amendment, I must say that as of now I am against Alito being on the Supreme Court. My reasons will be clearer once I finish Part 7 and further discuss separation of powers under the Constitution. However, for the time being I will say that his memo on signing statements--as reported by the Washington Post--leads me to think that not only does he have questionable views on Constitutional law but that he believes in giving the President (and especially our current President) more power and more ability to basically be above the law and not accountable.
Anyone who is not concerned about this issue concerns me. For any Bush supporters who don't think this is a problem, just ask yourselves whether you would want, oh, let's say...Hillary Clinton being President and having that kind of power. Aside from the fact that I don't want a Hillary Presidency, I don't want any President to be above the law.
The Senators on the Judiciary Committee damn well better grill Alito on separation of powers and his views on the powers of the President.
The Senators on the Judiciary Committee damn well better grill Alito on separation of powers and his views on the powers of the President.
posted by WCharles @ 1/09/2006 01:34:00 AM
15 Comments:
After reading some commentary on Alito's hearings, I am not concerned unless the Dem's make it political. I would ask, if a lawyer defends a person who admits to murder is that lawyer pro-murder? Alito was working for Reagan in the 80s when he pushed the signing statements. He did nothing illegal.
I agree that working as an advocate in DOJ during the Reagan years does not end the inquiry. I took the same position during the Roberts hearings. However, whether Alito still views the Constitution in the same way now is very relevant and very important.
Whether what Alito did then was legal or illegal (and I don't see how it could be "illegal") is not the issue for me. As a member of the Supreme Court, Alito will be in a position to determine and establish for the futire what is legal or illegal. And if he thinks giving more power to the President (any President) to keep him from being held accountable is what should be done, I don't want him on the Supreme Court.
This is not a question of what he would do on a given case. It is a question of core Constitutional and judicial philosophy.
"This is not a question of what he would do on a given case."
Unfortunately, the liberals grilling him now, on either side of the aisle, disagree with that statement. They do care how he would respond, for excample, to the abortion issue - it is a litmus test.
"It is a question of core Constitutional and judicial philosophy."
Then judge him on his words today, not what he said 20 years ago when his job had a much narrower focus and he played a different role in the judicial process. When I worked in a manufacturing department I tended to be parochial in that I wanted what I thought was best for my span of control. Now in HR, I have to have a much broader vision of the business. I liken Alito's situation to that.
Ted Kennedy caught with his pants down... again.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060117151509990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001
The liberal posterboy did it again, made a spectacle of himself grilling that mean ole discriminatory Alito about a college connection decades ago holding himself up as an exemplar of fairness and the protector of the downtrodden and of course women. Just ask Mary Jo, she'll tell you how he respects women. Oops, my bad... she's not available. And poof, come to find out he has been a member of an all-male social club, much like the one he accused Alito of prancing with, for over 50 years. Fifty years!!!! And he just sent them money last year maintaining his membership. Amazing. So much for liberal credibility.
While I understand (and even appreciate) your justified glee in Kennedy's shortcomings, such shortcomings do not in any way address whether Alito should be on the Supreme Court.
I know you recognize this point, but I will bet that GOP leaders and right-wing pundits will be saying that "Kennedy's hypocrisy proves that all criticism of Alito is wrong and proves that he should be on the Court."
Also, be careful in claiming that because of Ted's credibility problems "So much for liberal credibility." Under that standard, every Republican and every person claiming to be a conservative would have no credibility as a result of Bush's lack of credibility (on a wide array of subjects). Under that standard, all evengelical Christians would lack any credibility because of Pat Robertson. And on and on...
As I posted that I thought specifically of Pat Robertson and the embarassment he has become to both Evangelicals and Republicans in general. You are right, but I could not resist the hyperbole.
I agree, Kennedy's faux pas does not prove Alito is qualified, but does call into question the motives of the opposition.
If you asked an umpire, before a baseball game in which he was to work, which team he favored, or had favored in the past, the response you would expect would be: I can't say one way or the other, the game is afoot and I'll have to apply the rules to it. Why are we all so shocked when a potential supreme court justice gives such a reasonable answer? (It doesn't matter anyway, his party is in power and he'll get approved as long as he stays quiet. I'd blame the Dems for not raising a bigger stink about it, but what if the next guy's worse? Alito seems pretty reasonable.)
But hey, while I have the lawyer on the line, what's up with the signing comments anyway? The Pres signs the laws, he doesn't make 'em. I can understand a court looking into congressional notes to determine intent when it's challenged, because they wrote the law, but the Pres didn't. Who looks at signing statements and why? Talk about extending the power of the office. He gets to sign it or veto it. That's it. Wouldn't a signing statement be sort of like my signing my current teaching contract but adding at the time, "but I'm gonna date my students since it's not directly prohibited in this contract." How much leverage would that buy me? What's the difference?
BTW, cool stuff on the McCain amendment... I haven't had as much time lately to 'blog surf, but I dig it.
Luth, your umpire analogy is a pretty good one, and I will address my concerns about Alito by using the same analogy. There is no problem with an umpire saying "the game is afoot and I'll have to apply the rules to it," AS LONG AS HE DOESN"T TRY TO CHANGE THE RULES. The problem with Alito is that it seems that he favors changing the most basic rules of our government to give the President more power. And if he gets on the Supreme Court, he will be in a position to change the rules. His views on the signing statement not only show a desire to effect such a change in the rules, but also show really bad constitutional analysis. That is why what he said 20 years ago is relevant. More to the point, whether he still holds those views today is relevant.
As for "What's up with the signing statements?" I covered that topic in detail on Part 6 on the McCain amendment, but your comments show you have a good grasp of the matter.
Still, you raise a good question, namely "Who looks at signing statements?" What Alito proposed was that the Courts would look at them and use them in statutory construction, and, as explained in Part 6, that is just wrong.
"His views on the signing statement not only show a desire to effect such a change in the rules, but also show really bad constitutional analysis. That is why what he said 20 years ago is relevant. More to the point, whether he still holds those views today is relevant."
I suspect we could crucify many if not most politicians for views they held 20 years ago. People change, they learn, they become enlightened. What was Alito's motive for pushing signing statements 20 years ago? What is his position NOW? W, your last sentence above is all that matters.
Oh Luth, your Principal may be interested in your post. *evil grin*
Ray, while my "last sentence" is not ALL that matters, it is the most important question as far as I am concerned.
And Luth, pay attention to Ray's last comment... ;-)
I should have said, all that matters concerning the signing statements. You're right, this issue is complex.
Whoa there, Ray. Thanks to the current administration's privacy policies, my principal already has all the access he needs to anything I ever type on any computer and post over the web... but what's with the personal attacks lately? Why are you so quick to defend someone's stance from 20 years ago where we don't know the context and aren't allowed to ask the questions to help us understand, but even quicker to attack a hypothetical statement now when you do have the context and thus know it's hypothetical? *evil grin* Must be the lingering Red-Right-Repub in you!
Being bass trombone players, characteristics Ray and I have in common are a facility for sarcasm and an ability to recognize such sarcasm. Luth, I'm beginning to think that either you are or should be a bass trombone player, although Ray might have a different opinion. ;-)
BTW, I'm going to start a new thread on Alito.
I don't know W, I think Luth might make a better French Horn player - they tend to be more sensitive. No personal attacks intended, Luth, I hope you didn't really take it that way.
I was hoping W would start a new thread on Alito, since it is one of the more critical issues before us now. I'll just say for now, I'm not trying to defend Alito's position from 20 years ago, I'm questioning the relevancy of it. I do agree that making the presidency too powerful is not a good thing and Alito's constructionist views are important. But, I'm more interested in what he believes today or any relative rulings he's made in the previous, say, 5 years.
Oh, and W is right about us bass trombone players, we relish in a certain degree of courseness not found in flutists or violin players.
Post a Comment
<< Home